Scourge of War Boards

Off topic, sort of, but here it is anyway:

I really like how guns are lost for a period of time if captured or routed, but I'd like to see them come back with green crews instead of retaining their experience. I think this would further encourage players to keep their guns back.

Well-stated!

In the same vein, one might consider the replacements that arrive for routed and/or captured infantry units. For example, in Battle 1304, one unnamed Divion CO had almost his entire infantry command routed, surrendered or forced off the edge of the map (immobilized) by "insane" manuevering behind his opponent's lines. Yet, when his OOB next appeared, all regiments had returned with relatively large numbers and relatively high experience levels. In accord with your statement "encouraging" players to keep their guns back, is it possible to have a "sharp" drop in a routed, surrendered and/or "immobilized" regiment numbers/experience? (I am not sure if that is even possible, but might it not be worth consideration?)

Thanks

J

That's a good question, Jack. I'm pretty sure right now that Garnier's "program" looks for how many crew a gun loses to determine whether or not the gun was routed or captured (the file we save now doesn't distinguish between the two), so I suppose he could do the same thing with infantry regiments. And really, I wouldn't object to infantry regimets which rout or are captured being unavailable for the next few battles and suffering a bigger experience loss such as I proposed for artillery.

Now this is a good point.

I have to find out if the game makes a distinction between units that are routed, and units that are retreating, in the gamedb file. If it does, we could have an additional quantity of 'desertions' from units that rout, same as we do for captured units (usually, there is a problem where sometimes captured units aren't counted as captured in the gamedb file which I can't help).

We could also have routed/captured units be removed just as guns are, though the frequency of this and the rate that they return wouldn't have to be the same.

If that is possible, I would definitely support it. If we had set sides, we could set ourselves up a cartel, but for now, I'd think captured infantry units should be gone at least as long as guns (or have a lower return %, as it were).

Yeah, well captured units already lose half of their remaining strength to represent the prisoners. The other half remain, to represent that the entire regiment wasn't usually captured to the last man. Plus there are stragglers who weren't in the battle and they aren't captured.

For consideration (if possible): Perhaps it is not feasible, but offering for consideration.

Routed Units: Percentage able to return at some point in time with lower experience levels.

Captured Units: Never return as most were interred for the "duration", especially as the war progressed. (Read Grant's argument for discontinuing the exchange of prisoners.)

This "may" cause players to reconsider the "Banzai" attack such as happened in 1304 or yesterday's game where a player charged, with one infantry regiment, an entire line of artillery supported by infantry.

J:unsure:

We won't lose regiments permanently unless there's a way to get new regiments, and I don't have a plan for that. Since our campaign doesn't have an end, if we lost regiments and got new ones, the regiment numbers would keep going up.

I know prisoners usually weren't exchanged, but the reason you don't lose the entire regiment is as I said, to represent those who weren't captured, and because troops who were in the regiment but not at the battle shouldn't get captured. Almost all of those actually captured, you never get back. So the regiment's experience will go down if these troops are replaced.

For consideration (if possible): Perhaps it is not feasible, but offering for consideration.

Routed Units: Percentage able to return at some point in time with lower experience levels.

Captured Units: Never return as most were interred for the "duration", especially as the war progressed. (Read Grant's argument for discontinuing the exchange of prisoners.)

This "may" cause players to reconsider the "Banzai" attack such as happened in 1304 or yesterday's game where a player charged, with one infantry regiment, an entire line of artillery supported by infantry.

J:unsure:

Hold on there, Jack. 1304 was no "Banzai" charge my friend. That was a well coordinated assault. I led that charge with 3 of my Texas regiments. We took very few casualties and threw Matt's Yanks off that objective and took it. If there were an hour left in that game, that objective would still have been ours.

Look at the battle results for my Texas boys, hardly a "Banzai charge."


http://www.sow.philipmcg.com/c/platte/p ... attle=1304

For consideration (if possible): Perhaps it is not feasible, but offering for consideration.

Routed Units: Percentage able to return at some point in time with lower experience levels.

Captured Units: Never return as most were interred for the "duration", especially as the war progressed. (Read Grant's argument for discontinuing the exchange of prisoners.)

This "may" cause players to reconsider the "Banzai" attack such as happened in 1304 or yesterday's game where a player charged, with one infantry regiment, an entire line of artillery supported by infantry.

J:unsure:

Hold on there, Jack. 1304 was no "Banzai" charge my friend. That was a well coordinated assault. I led that charge with 3 of my Texas regiments. We took very few casualties and threw Matt's Yanks off that objective and took it. If there were an hour left in that game, that objective would still have been ours.

Look at the battle results for my Texas boys, hardly a "Banzai charge."


http://www.sow.philipmcg.com/c/platte/p ... attle=1304

No, Mark, wasn't referring to your division, at all! I was purposely vague so as not to insult anyone, but it was not your attack.

J